There is much debate amongst Christians as to whether or not sex between two people who have never been married constitutes a form of fornication. The Bible itself is silent on the issue of consensual, premarital sex between an engaged couple.[11]

The Anglican Bishop and writer John Shelby Spong believes that the New Testament is not against sex before marriage

In the 1170s, “it was common practice for ordinary couples to co-habit before marriage and for cousins to marry one another”.[15] Sex before marriage only became equated with sinfulness with the passing of the Marriage Act 1753.[16]

Earlier, in 1987, Spong’s Newark Diocese had commissioned a report that concluded that the “Episcopal Church should recognize and bless committed non-marital sexual relationships between homosexuals, young adults, the divorced and widowed…” The report aimed “to ignite a new debate on sexual ethics among leaders of the nation’s 3 million Episcopalians in the hope that they will amend church doctrine to embrace all believers…

In his book Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, Mark Regnerus notes that “Evangelical Christian teens are more likely to have lost their virginity earlier than mainline Protestants. They start having sex on average at age 16.3 and are more likely than other religious groups to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17.”[37]

Alternatively, the Wisconsin Synod takes the view that a Christian couple could engage in sex before marriage but for the fact it would be an act of defiance against civil and religious norms in society.

In the United States, pastors of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod undertook a survey on premarital sex amongst their congregations in 2010. “These Lutheran pastors reported that over 57 percent of the couples they now marry are living together prior to the wedding, and that the rate of cohabitation in their congregations is increasing.”

If they are still confused, let us take an example from the exemplary life of infallible Pope Alexander IV.

Of Alexander’s many mistresses the one for whom passion lasted longest was a certain Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattani, born in 1442, and wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470, and she bore him four children whom he openly acknowledged as his own: Giovanni, afterwards duke of Gandia (born 1474), Cesare (born 1476), Lucrezia (born 1480), and Goffredo or Giuffre (born 1481 or 1482).

So if we see people having sex outside marriage, let us remind them what religions teach. Then we should motivate them to model exemplary life of our religious leaders and their own brothers and sisters in faith.

András Györkő · Top Commenter · UMSZKI
The Bible doesn’t say a fcking thing about gay marriage. What it says is being gay is bad. Theese people aren’t protesting against gays, but against their right for marriage what has nothing to do with the Bible. And if you say they cant protest for what they think is right, then you are the one here who want to tell others how to live.
Reply · 54 · Like · Follow Post · Edited · November 24 at 12:08am

Tim Platenkamp · Top Commenter
No, the bible doesn’t say a thing about being gay being bad. The Bible says that gay sex between men is punishable by death.
Reply · 31 · Like · November 24 at 2:17am
András Györkő · Top Commenter · UMSZKI
Still nothing about marriage there.
Reply · 19 · Like · November 24 at 2:19am
Alexander Christian Frank Levedahl · Cooper Union
András Györkő because as everyone knows, married people do not have sex.

Which doesn’t make sense at all. Paul, which is not God, a jew, a pharisee, and possibly an impotent man, that never meet Jesus for a long time except for a brief “sightings” claim that marriage is a “cure” for sexual immorality.

The truth is, Paul doesn’t even condemn sex outside marriage, at least on that verse. He simply encourage people to get married, possibly so they don’t fuck pigs or others’ wife instead, which is not halachic.

For example, Paul could have said, “To reduce rape, let everyone watch porn?” That would work. I would agree. I mean porn does reduce rape. Does that imply that all non pornographic sex is sin? I think it should be but it doesn’t imply from that.

Somehow that supposed to imply that sex outside marriage is sin? Doesn’t make sense to me.

Nothing else is significant. Jesus condemn ogling women. However, he wasn’t talking about marriage at all. In fact, when Jesus say that divorce is bad, most Jesus disciples quickly says, “why get married?”

I mean if all sex outside marriage is sin, something that’s not obviously not obvious, Jesus would have freaked out and said, “You fucking kidding me? What, you want to fornicate? That’s like the only major sin statistically condemned you know.”

Then there are 2 women that come to Solomon to split a baby. The bible wrote that the 2 women are harlots. Yet most sunday school retelling seems to omit this material point.

Even christians that’s against sex outside marriage admit:

There is no specific prohibition in the Bible against sex between an unmarried man and unmarried woman. However, “sexual immorality” is denounced in about 25 passages in the New Testament. The word translated as “sexual immorality” or “fornication” in English versions of the Bible is the Greek word porneia, which means “illicit sexual intercourse.”

In ancient time marriage serves one important purpose. Decide who the father of the baby. There isn’t really any other practical way. Deciding who the father of the baby is important for inheritance.

Latter marriage has other purposes. It’s a tool for ruling class to control who women can choose. For example, religious leaders have right to define marriage and can decide that women can only marry certain group of people. In muslim countries, muslim women can only marry muslims. In democractic countries, single voters arrange that women can only marry single men.

For these control to work, alternatives to marriage that directly compete or even better than marriage must be prohibited. Hence, the real reason behind prohibition of prostitution and women trafficking, or even all sex outside marriage in many countries.

Having sex outside marriage means having fun without the blessing of religious leaders and political leaders. This undermine power of religious leaders. They then have every incentive to condemn such acts.

The original purpose of marriage to decide who the father of the baby is, is pretty much gone. We have dna tests for that.

Politicians still get votes for “defending” marriage supported by many men and women that want to control women and limit women choices. Hence, marriage is still significant.

Most countries have laws that makes marriage favorably significant and that’s why people still got married. Soon, this will be gone and marriage, as we know, is in decline.

Well, saying that smart productive parents do not always have smart productive kids is true.

It’s like saying that rewarded acts do not necessarily become common nor punished acts becoming less common.

Government could jail programmers and give money to burglars. I would expect there will be more burglary and less programmers. Am I sure that every single person that is jailed for becoming programmer and given money to become burglars will be more likely to become burglars? No.

But on average it’s obvious.

The same way, government can reward parasites to breed with welfare and punish the productive from breeding with high child support and alimony costs.

Will every sons of welfare parasites that are born become welfare recipients? No. Many things could happen. As GDP said, son of welfare parasite may be productive. Some people may not want kids, etc. But on average it’s obvious.

If welfare recipients have more children, we will have more welfare recipients. If programmers have more children we will have more programmers, doctors, lawyers, etc. What reproduce reproduces. There is no way out of it.

In ancient time, emperors would grant powers not only to a person but to the person’ descendants. Why? What have the descendant done? Well, the descendant have done nothing worthy of merit. However, benefiting descendant of somebody would motivate the parent to serve the emperor better. Without that system, chinese dynasties would have collapse faster like most other kings in the world.

The same way it seems unfair that the son of the rich enjoy much higher chance to be successful than son of the poor. However, if not because of that, most rich people, knowing they won’t take their money with them anyway, will stop working.

I neither agree or disagree whether men is considered a rapist if she force his wife to have sex. To me, such commitment to have sex issue should be up to individuals and not up to government. In general I err on the side of “I don’t like strong contract”. In other word I’d say women consent is still necessary but if she refused the man should get a refund.

It’s like agreeing to sing in an opera and then backing off after the event organizer collect so many audiences.

Practical aside. Why do you want to get married? In ancient time, you want to get married to manipulate your pay off function right. If Bob marry Jane, Bob pays fewer political costs if Bob fucks Jane. Bob also increase political costs for others to fuck Jane.

For example, in ancient time: Bob marries Jane. If Donny fuck Jane, they’re both death. This ensures that Jane’s son is Bob’s son and Bob can inherit his wealth to his son. Also Bob has “extra” right over Jane. In ancient time, Bob doesn’t have to wait for Jane to be in the mood again to fuck Jane. Moreover, because Jane couldn’t fuck anyone else, Jane has strong incentive to fuck Bob. Also marriage wasn’t that costly for Bob because Bob can still fuck other girls. In ancient time, marriage is a better deal for richer man.

That better deal is necessary to persuade men to marry the girl in the first place. If the deal wasn’t that good, men simply won’t get married or find other girls that offer better deals.

Nowadays things are not like that.

Bob marries Jane. Bob doesn’t have more right to fuck Jane. Like before marriage, Bob will fuck Jane if and only if Jane consent. So no need to get married.

Donny has bigger pay off in fucking Jane. Now if Jane got knocked up, Bob will still have to pay the support. If all else the same, men should fuck others’ wife. It’s legal and all. Bob can no longer fuck other girls. That means she depends on Jane’s whim. Moreover, marriage and risk of breaking up is very costly for Bob. The cost of alimony is much higher for richer males than poorer males.

So, obviously marriage is a bad deal for men nowadays unless you are poor.

So why get married at all?

Rather than marrying, richer men are obviously far better off just paying for sex. But that one is illegal. And that’s where I think the big problem is.

Fuck someone else’ wife. Then the suckers will have to pay child support.

In fact, if you want to pay less child support and you’re too rich, this is a sure fire way to do so.

Method 1:

Get a bum to marry the girl. Marriage means nothing because husband has no more right to have sex with his wife than no husband. Both can if and only if the girl consent.

Actually marriage give the every other men more incentive to fuck the girl than the husband. Also no fault divorce means relationship can be dissolved anyway. Set prenuptial agreement to ensure things don’t go wrong.

Fuck the girl.

The sucker will have to pay child support. Because he is a bum, your kids got welfare check. You can further add more money for luxuries.

Method 2:

Arrange that all your wealth belong to your parents. They can inherit it to you or your biological children latter. Wealth belonging to your parents are safe from alimony/child support calculation.

Method 3:

Go to Asia. Democracy is new and gene pool survival is simply not socialistic yet.

I think richard dawkins know this more than I am. We are selfish. What we want correlate correctly with our gene pool survival. Moreover, it’s power, not money that motivate people to do things. What’s money for if somebody have power over it anyway.

From this, I know that anti drug laws are not there to protect potential drug users. Anti drug laws are there to control drugs. Ganja is safe and valuable. So people want to have power over it.

Anti prostitution laws are not there to protect women. It’s there to control women. Without anti prostitution laws very few people would want marriage. Prostitution is simply a natural way to get what you want. Men want sex and women want money. Voters and religious leaders want people to get married so they can control the marriage rules.

Monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. The alternative is too much killing each other for power such as what happen in muslim countries. No, it’s also not there to protect women from having to share. Many women don’t mind sharing. Monogamy laws are there not because no women want to share. Monogamy laws are there because if polygamy were legal, too many women would rather share Bill Gates or Tiger Wood, than be the only one for typical voters.

Prohibition of organ selling is not there to protect organ donor. Most organ donors would rather sell rather than give away their organs. It’s there to ensure that the poor voters have as much chance to get organs as the rich that can just pay more for it.

Anti women trafficking laws are not there to protect trafficked women. It’s there to prevent “imported” sex from competing with expensive and often uglier european women. European girls are often pretty. However, there is no way anyone can compete with cheaper foreign girls, filtered by their beauty, that would fuck for much less.

Most relationship are based on taking advantage and using each other. This can be done in a win win way and win lose way. The more people are honest that they are trying to take advantage of others, the more likely the relationship is win win.

For example, relationship between bosses and employees are win win. Bos uses employee to build his business. Employees use bosses to get salary. That’s fine.

It’s when people claim that they do it out of altruism or some “higher purpose” it’s usually done in a truly exploitative way. The true motives, and often the real outcome, is so bad they have to hide it.

For example, when so many dies or go to jail due to drug wars, people say it’s the unintended consequences. I say that it’s the true intent of drug wars. To jail and kill many people. The idea that drugs are dangerous are just pretext by assholes to justify enslaving you and curbing your freedom.

Basically, when something is so closely related to gene pool survival, be it, number of kids, number of wives, capability to get healthy, people are so jealous that the other got more that most democratic country is effectively socialist. It’s not that the poor are worse off in democratic countries.

It’s just that the poor spend their voting power to ensure that they life just as long and produce as many kids as the rich. Poor people do not spend their voting power to get richer. Many socialist laws actually prevent poor people from getting rich. But that’s not what the poor want. The poor wants to live and breed, not getting rich. That’s why they stay poor.

Yes they keep saying that’s not what they want. That’s exactly what they do. Deep inside, it’s what they truly want.